Gun Control

Jogre said:
Given that this gun control debate mostly affects the US, I don't think you have to worry about pseudo-marxists highjacking it.

The US doesn't really have any major marxist political voices, given that their "left wing" party the Democrats are basically just mild conservatives.
Click to expand...
Well, social change often starts at universities, and apparently about 18% of social scientists in the US self-identify as Marxists. Given that a huge chunk of modern social science is pseudo-marxist, the number of people there being closely allied to Marxism is likely much higher. As I said, it's just a minority, but a vocal one. You'd think that this whole crazy Intersectional Theory/Critical Studies stuff, which is essentially pseudo-marxist at its core, would not have any effect on life since it's purely academic, but for some reason it does have a big influence on politics.

But yes, there are barely any actual Marxists left as political parties, not even in Europe.
 
Remember that time a liberal communist opened fire on Steven Scalise, cops around him, and innocent civilians fleeing the scene, and the left was all...
"Haha how ironic!"
"It's what they deserve!"
"Hahahaha 'shall not be infringed' hahahaha"
"Yaasss slay queeeeeen"

Jogre said:
Given that this gun control debate mostly affects the US, I don't think you have to worry about pseudo-marxists highjacking it.

The US doesn't really have any major marxist political voices, given that their "left wing" party the Democrats are basically just mild conservatives.
Click to expand...
1. Marxist and pseudo-marxist want to hijack everything. They hijacked the fucking SCP website, man. A Warehouse 13 knockoff fanon-wiki.
2. The US has a FUCKTON of major marxist political voices, what do you think gender-studies cultural marxists are?
3. If you think the Democrats are mild conservatives, I hope to got I never encounter someone you consider sufficiently Liberal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Remember the time I told you to edit your posts instead of double posting? Please remember it.
 
After reconsidering, I have actually changed my opinion on this topic somewhat.

I'm not very comfortable with the idea of guns as a casual thing that people just parade around like it's nothing. I think that many people have lost their lives in attacks with weapons like these, and it would probably be a lot better for the state of minds of people who knew victims of attacks if the gun crowd was maybe a little more tactful about how they parade around their weapons.

HOWEVER

I think we ought to consider that many people in rural parts of the US where the police can't reach, or in communities that have traditionally had trouble with the police may not be able to rely on the police to protect them, and in such situations we need to have them able to protect themselves.

In addition, I know that the "government tyranny" argument may seem ridiculous, but there is some legitimacy to the claim: Take the Zapatistas of Mexico for instance, it's been 20 years since they first declared war on the Mexican government and they are still alive and kicking, mostly due to them being heavily armed. It'd be foolish to assume that western nations are immune to corruption and tyranny, so I don't blame people for wanting to prepare for the worst.

I'm incredibly uncomfortable with the mass shootings that take place so often, and I totally see the legitimacy of wanting stricter gun control, however I kinda think we need a more centrist approach, that respects some people may need to protect themselves a lot more than we admit.
SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 said:
3. If you think the Democrats are mild conservatives, I hope to got I never encounter someone you consider sufficiently Liberal.
Click to expand...
You realise that the US is very right wing compared to the rest of the world right?

Most Democrat politicians would be considered centrists in a lot of countries if they spouted the same policies.
 
Last edited:
Jogre said:
I think we ought to consider that many people in rural parts of the US where the police can't reach, or in communities that have traditionally had trouble with the police may not be able to rely on the police to protect them, and in such situations we need to have them able to protect themselves.
Click to expand...
This is what the people in the South, where the staunchest gun supporters reside, have been saying from the start. It's a total lack of perspective, usually from liberals who have never touched a gun, that has clouded many peoples vision. Plus, if you bring up what you just said, you have to add this modifier:

But people should not be shooting up schools and stuff, so something should be done to keep guns out of the hands of nutty nuts and terrorists, while keeping our 2nd amendment right to bear arms against tyrannical Pinkerton agents.
 
TorontRayne said:
This is what the people in the South, where the staunchest gun supporters reside, have been saying from the start. It's a total lack of perspective, usually from liberals who have never touched a gun, that has clouded many peoples vision. Plus, if you bring up what you just said, you have to add this modifier:
Click to expand...
I know.

The climate on this topic is very hostile, and people on both sides often outright dismiss the other side's desire for safety due to a lack of realising the limits of their perspective.

My post was an attempt to convince other leftists in this thread to maybe heed those concerns from the staunch gun supporters.
 
I perfectly understood that. I don't think any of us, at least here, wants people who needs them to not be able to use them. That's literally the diametric opposite of the point of this. The reformations that should take place, I see no way whatsoever that it'd hurt them. It's a straw man to honestly believe that it's about disarmament, or anything massive and immediate. It's an incredibly basic bottomline that by making it so that people who should have them do so, then they'll be able to exercise that right with less risk. After all, that's how it works in the rest of the world. Believe it or not, European countries also have wilderness and isolated areas.

Would you rather have the defender have a rifle and the invader have a pistol, or the defender have a pistol and the invader nothing? That being an incredibly reductionist example, of course. But it's the idea behind de-escalation.

I don't see why is investing in invention and application of better non lethal-self defense weapons and tools so alien a concept, for instance. And the same for all the regulations that could take place. The problem is the old conservative motto of "why change it", where the effort and responsability of doing such a thing is apparently too much, and not only that but a misplay in this strange, abstract political game of tug-of-war where signing some papers will either sink the country into either a fascist dictatorship or a communist regime, instead of just making convivence better bit by bit.

Jogre said:
In addition, I know that the "government tyranny" argument may seem ridiculous, but there is some legitimacy to the claim: Take the Zapatistas of Mexico for instance, it's been 20 years since they first declared war on the Mexican government and they are still alive and kicking, mostly due to them being heavily armed. It'd be foolish to assume that western nations are immune to corruption and tyranny, so I don't blame people for wanting to prepare for the worst.
Click to expand...
The problem is that "tyranny" is relative. Wether the government is right or not, nowadays militias and guerillas crawling around will do nothing but hurt civillians. Be it by colateral effects, or the government trying to snuff them out while those movements explot their status. Ultimately, change is only inflicted by those insurrectors by pressure and presence, if anything, when they're not nullified or straight up removed. For the most contemporary example you should look at the Colombian FARC for the former, or middle eastern nations in conflict for the latter.
 
Heh.
Just tell the wingnuts that King George is coming to collect taxes and that the Marxists are here to turn the frogs in your pond gay, and tell the moonbats that everyone and their mother is a Nazi and the police, the thinly veiled KKK offshoot they are, will start ethnic cleansings every minute now.
And they will both tell you that the fears the other side has are utterly ridiculous.
 
There are large areas of Finland that don't have quick police presence available. People still don't buy guns there for 'self protection' or whatever. Yes, they complain and when, because of right wing induced budget cuts, they have to reduce the number of cops or police stations in some area, it's not a good situation and some people will have lesser protection against crime. Then again we have overall lower levels of crime compared to US so no need for every man, woman, baby, gramps to prepare 24/7/365 to an all out blast out/OK Corrall.

US has more problems than shitty-ass gun laws, they also have very high crime figures. Before they can kick out the nazi-ass right wingers they will continue to be a high-crime/high gun violence -nation that endlessly tries to solve societal problems by using guns as a kind of half-ass bandage that just makes the problems worse.
 
I can tell you exactly why we have a high crime rate and it's not because of "nazi-ass right wingers" or any other flavor of political horseshit.

Also, "high crime rate" is such a relative thing. We're no Honduras, for fuck's sake.
 
Arnust said:
For the most contemporary example you should look at the Colombian FARC for the former, or middle eastern nations in conflict for the latter.
Click to expand...
It's odd that you give middle eastern nations in conflict as an example because there is a region run by direct democracy in northern Syria right now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Federation_of_Northern_Syria

So basically, in a conflict that was otherwise composed of religious extremists and a tyrant government, one region was able to gain it's independence from both sides and spread democracy instead. If that's not a good reason to believe in the fighting against government tyranny argument I don't know what is.
That Damn Dog said:
I can tell you exactly why we have a high crime rate
Click to expand...
I have a bad feeling about what you are going to say next.
 
Jogre said:
I have a bad feeling about what you are going to say next.
Click to expand...

If "the war on drugs perpetuated not on political lines so much as the need to ensure Johnny Jackboots gets to keep his sweet gig", "deep schisms in society among numerous different lines perpetuated by a media that lives by the motto 'if it bleeds it leads'", and "irresponsible attitudes towards law enforcement from both citizen and officer side exacerbated again by a media machine that would set a fire just to be the one to get the scoop on 'TRAGEDY STRIKES: DOZENS DIE IN HORRIFIC FIRE'" is what you were thinking, then I guess you're in for some bad feels.

Our prosecution of every dipshit with a dimebag inflates our crime stats significantly. Also, excessive focus on punitive and near-zero on rehabilitation. Prisons should be like hospitals where you get yourself unfucked, not crime colleges and rapefests like they currently are. Not everyone can be rehabilitated, obv, but expecting someone to come out of the slammer better than they were when they went in is downright stupid given how MOST prisons are.

MutantScalper said:
One of the victims of the mass shooting was Rob Hiaasen, Carl Hiaasen's brother. I've read many of Carl Hiaasen's books.

But guns are kewl, mmkay? NRA is kewl, mmkay?

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2...al-gazette-shooting-victim-sot-newday-vpx.cnn
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're trying to tug on my heartstrings here with this sad anecdote and how a shooting death impacted a guy who impacted you but I'm sad to say I have no strings to pluck and you're shit out of luck. NRA's not perfect by a long shot but I'd rather have them around than not. I don't see tragedies and go "You know what, this makes me feel like advocating for the abridgement of the rights of law-abiding citizens everywhere including myself" because that's really fucking stupid, to be honest.
 
Last edited:
That Damn Dog said:
I'm sure you're trying to tug on my heartstrings here with this sad anecdote and how a shooting death impacted a guy who impacted you but I'm sad to say I have no strings to pluck and you're shit out of luck. NRA's not perfect by a long shot but I'd rather have them around than not. I don't see tragedies and go "You know what, this makes me feel like advocating for the abridgement of the rights of law-abiding citizens everywhere including myself" because that's really fucking stupid, to be honest.
Click to expand...

Mostly just ignoring you mr One Issue Noob.
 
Jogre said:
It's odd that you give middle eastern nations in conflict as an example because there is a region run by direct democracy in northern Syria right now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Federation_of_Northern_Syria

So basically, in a conflict that was otherwise composed of religious extremists and a tyrant government, one region was able to gain it's independence from both sides and spread democracy instead. If that's not a good reason to believe in the fighting against government tyranny argument I don't know what is.
Click to expand...
I mean... I haven't said it's impossible. It's an exception. I said it can eventually work through its pressure. And the Syrian civil war had heavy outside interference. Those foreign interventors, like in most conflicts of this nature, providing support through resources and supplies rather than manpower. Resources and supplies like say, weapons, vehicles and the ability to sustain both. Which doesn't loop back too nicely to the legal gun laws.
 
That Damn Dog said:
If "the war on drugs perpetuated not on political lines so much as the need to ensure Johnny Jackboots gets to keep his sweet gig", "deep schisms in society among numerous different lines perpetuated by a media that lives by the motto 'if it bleeds it leads'", and "irresponsible attitudes towards law enforcement from both citizen and officer side exacerbated again by a media machine that would set a fire just to be the one to get the scoop on 'TRAGEDY STRIKES: DOZENS DIE IN HORRIFIC FIRE'" is what you were thinking, then I guess you're in for some bad feels.

Our prosecution of every dipshit with a dimebag inflates our crime stats significantly. Also, excessive focus on punitive and near-zero on rehabilitation. Prisons should be like hospitals where you get yourself unfucked, not crime colleges and rapefests like they currently are. Not everyone can be rehabilitated, obv, but expecting someone to come out of the slammer better than they were when they went in is downright stupid given how MOST prisons are.
Click to expand...
Oh wow, nevermind I actually agree with most of what you just said here.

Sorry I was being a bit presumptuous about your motives, it's just that we've had a few weird users here over the years like @Vergil and @IlluminatiConfirmed who self-assuredly claimed to know what the cause of crime was, and ended up having strange views about race.

Was pleasantly surprised to see that you actually had a very progressive viewpoint here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top